Iraq war - people died.
Call me old fashioned, but i'm pretty sure one of the key factors of war is that people die. I regularly read the BBC news website and I find it a little strange that today it's being reported that "someone has died and two others have been injured". Isn't that the point? Eggs will be broken.
Either we're so good (or the insurgents are so bad) that it's an event when we actually chalk up a casualty, or it's a slow news day, but surely it's gonna happen? Maybe it's the increased media penetration and the ever-pervading nature of today's media coverage means that we're able to know about it.
Now, before you get your flamethrowers out, I'm not disrespecting in any way the men and women who are out there. I dare say many of them don't agree with all that's going on but are doing their duty regardless. It's still war. (ok, perhaps not technically a war, but a ..... "Forced Democratic Transitionary Period". Call it what you like)
Here endeth today's random musing.
I can only agree. It's a shame that they don't mention the 1000 to 1 ratio (might not be quite that but it's high) of insurgents (a word for someone who is fighting to free their occupied country) to U.K / U.S troops. That might make people sit up and notice just what's going on.
i think there is a danger that we have become desensitized about what's happeninig over in iraq....the uk and american forces are involved in a guerilla war, so yes it has to be reported. As with anything, the coverage has dropped off considerably - perhaps giving the false impression that things are quiet over there and therefore there are no issues and no dramas. Well, the forces and the govt. may be making progress but if we weren't still in a war of some sort then why is a troop presence still there....
i think it's obvious that we could be there in some capacity for years rather than months and there will continue to be civilian and armed forces casualties, in which case, do you make a decision to stop reporting about it ? Or if you do continue to report, how far down in the list of important news stories does the death of a combatant go ?
News headlines in this country are invariably dominated by party political gumph, especially on a slow news day....i object more to the bbc headlining margarett beckett providing a quote about broon needin to listen or whatever the hell she said. That's what i call a non-news story, as if anyone (even those in the labour party itself), give a toss what margarett beckett has to say.
One of the criticisms i have of the news is that it doesn't report about a lot of the nightmares and troubles in far flung parts of the world. We're very self obsessed about our news whether it be close to home or whether it be about brits abroad.....i mean does anyone even know how many iraqi civilians have died and how many of those have been reported by the uk media.
"news" often doesn't report what's going on at home, let alone what's going on else where.
For example, I've just seen the news about the murder of a teenager in Dewsbury. that's obviously a tragedy and should be reported. What hasn't been reported is the number of people killed in road accidents this weekend. I suspect that the number is far higher than those who've died in knife or gun incidents in the same period and many will be just as tragic.
Actually, if you have ever looked at newspapers in pretty much any other part of the world (especially America), you will see that we do report on what is going on in other countries far more than most. Even our local paper has a page of international news.
I think that the non reporting of civilian Iraqi casualties has little to do with the press not reporting what goes on abroad and more to do with suppression of news.
The Independent continally reports the numbers of dead on all sides
(Robert Fisk: The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn - Robert Fisk, News - The Independent)
A quick google search shows that the Guardian, Times and BBC have often reported the number of civilian deaths - but there seems to be little from the tabloids, I agree
it's mainly the incessant political commentary i object to from the 'news' media...it's largely a result of 24 hour news that our news outlets seem obsessed with the minutia of politics and sport...
media outlets just seem to be a channel for politicians to score browny points.
for instaance the govt. have policy they want to announce that is actually old news, but they need an outlet because they're taking a hammering in the polls or have egg on their faces from yet another cockup - media outlets duly oblige....
or alex ferguson plays mind games on the eve of a game with a rival team and this is somehow deemed newsworthy. Or player A has something not very interesting to say on the eve of a game about they're footballing journey or some other tripe - this is deemed news and is given far more column inches than it deserves....i for one don't give a toss what a muppet like rio ferdinand has to say about anything so why do the papers and bbc sport run parallel sport 'stories' concentrating on his generic utterings.
It's ridiculous, we're in an era where we have fewer and fewer peronsalities in politics and sport, yet never has the media hung on the words of so many boring, self absorbed people. Heck, they're even given their own colums to write....david blunkett, alan curbishly and that moron mark bright are given column inches to state the bleemin' obvious.... It's not as if we've got a brian clough, or a fred trueman to say something controversial or half-way amusing. We haven't even got that many interesting politicians other than the likes of frank field or boris to mix things up a little bit - yet the coverage is at times overwhelming.
I'm starting to think the daily sport had it right....picture of a pair of knockers on every other page to fill the paper in lieu of not having much else to say.